Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4484 (MAD)

R. Prabhakar v. V. Jothilakshmi

2012-10-30

C.S.KARNAN

body2012
Judgment The respondent herein / petitioner, viz., Dr. V. Jothilakshmi had filed a case in M.C.No.12 of 2011 against the petitioners herein / respondents viz., husband and mother-in-law respectively under Section 18(A)(B)(C)(E)(F)(G), 19(A)(B)(C) and Section 20(C) of Domestic Violence Act stating that she has been married to the first petitioner herein on 05.09.2003. From the date of marriage both the petitioners herein and their family members have been torturing her physically and mentally. She gave birth to a female child on 06.06.2004. Therefore, the petitioners and their family members prevented her from entering the matrimonial home since she gave birth to a female child. Finally, they demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-besides her monthly salary. The second petitioner i.e, the mother-in-law had not provided food and also disconnected the cooking gas connection of the cylinder. Further, she instructed her son not to provide food and maintenance to the wife, therefore, the respondent herein had herself provided all maintenance to the children and also metedout all expenses. 2. The respondent further stated that the second petitioner herein and her daughter had criticized about the complexion of the infant being dark. Therefore, they demanded further dowry and also demanded a motorcycle to the husband, failing which, they threatened that a second marriage will be arranged with a girl of fair complexion, who is financially sound. They obtained her signature in a loan document forcibly and made her legally enforceable to clear the debt. They also removed the name board of the clinic and closed the same. Besides this, the water connection and electricity connection were disconnected. The services of the housemaid was also dispensed with. The respondent further stated that when she conceived for the second time, her mother-in-law had not provided food and other basic requirements, with the result, she was laid up with blood sugar. The petitioners had threatened the respondent that if she delivered a female child for the second time, she would not be permitted to reside within the matrimonial home. Therefore, the respondent / wife had entreated to be provided with accommodation for her residence and her children and also pleaded for payment of maintenance to the minor children. 3. The petitioners herein had filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. Therefore, the respondent / wife had entreated to be provided with accommodation for her residence and her children and also pleaded for payment of maintenance to the minor children. 3. The petitioners herein had filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. The husband stated that his wife was working as a doctor from the year 2004 onwards at various hospitals, viz., Vijaya Hospital, Kamakshi Memorial Hospital, V-care Hospital. Now she is permanently working as a medical officer, employed with the Chennai Corporation Hospital. From the date of marriage his wife has been saying she desired to marry a doctor, but her father compelled her to marry the first petitioner herein. He is always doing his service to his wife as a dutiful husband and had maintained her through his earnings as a Manager in the bank. The first petitioner further stated that whenever both of them attended any function, his wife would say to others that she is a doctor, but her husband is a bank employee and so she was not satisfied with his treatment. On one occasion, his wife removed her thali. Occasionally, the first petitioner herein used to return late at night after finishing his office work and at such times, she would lock the door and keep him waiting for long periods. The first petitioner further stated that his mother and sister are taking much care on his second female child and they are providing all necessary things. He had obtained a loan from the bank in order to purchase a two wheeler which was not provided as promised by her. The petitioners family members are very happy with the female child. Further the second child was also a female and this was known by scan method, three months after conception. The first petitioner and his family members had taken his wife to a private hospital for her second delivery and during that time all the family members took much care of the respondent and the newly born infant. The petitioners and the family members had extended their co-operation to his wife for her higher education; they never criticized about her complexion that she was dark. 4. The first petitioner herein further stated that he is earning Rs.17,000/- and his wife's earnings is Rs.35,000/- per month. But, even so, she never contributed any amount towards the family and children's education. 4. The first petitioner herein further stated that he is earning Rs.17,000/- and his wife's earnings is Rs.35,000/- per month. But, even so, she never contributed any amount towards the family and children's education. The first petitioner with the efforts of his sister got admission for the first child at SBOA School and meted out all educational expenses of the child including uniform. The respondent herein being a natural mother had not spent any money towards the first child's education. Under the circumstances, the respondent / wife without informing to the first petitioner obtained the transfer certificate of the child from the school and as such, the child's education of one year was interrupted. On 11.11.2010, the respondent herein left the matrimonial home along with her two children and joined up at her parents residence at Adayar. A duplicate of the matrimonial house key is in her possession. Hence, she can return any time to the matrimonial home. The first petitioner herein and her family members had never driven her out of the matrimonial home at any point of time, as alleged by her. The respondent's clinic board had not been removed by either the petitioner or his family members. The clinic board was violating Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Norms, since the electricity connection was provided for residential purpose and not for clinics. Therefore, on the instruction of the electricity board official, the sign board of the clinic was removed and not with any other ulterior motive as alleged by the respondent herein. On 26.12.2010, the respondent herein came with her father in a car and collected her belongings including her two wheeler and a baby cycle. The first petitioner and his family members are residing at door No.733, 4th Street, Anna Nagar West Extension, which had been purchased by his father after raising a loan from the bank and now his father repaying the amount to the bank from his monthly pension. As such, the first petitioner is not the owner of the residential property. The first petitioner further submitted that his wife is having two houses, i.e., one at Annanagar West and the other at Ashok Nagar, Chennai. At the time of marriage the parents of the respondent herein had presented five sovereigns gold necklace, four sovereigns bracelet, two sovereigns finger ring and other gold rings weighing four grams. The first petitioner further submitted that his wife is having two houses, i.e., one at Annanagar West and the other at Ashok Nagar, Chennai. At the time of marriage the parents of the respondent herein had presented five sovereigns gold necklace, four sovereigns bracelet, two sovereigns finger ring and other gold rings weighing four grams. The respondent's father had also provided 75 sovereigns gold jewellery to the wife and also provided various house hold articles etc., 5. On verifying the averments of both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate has held that the respondent herein is not entitled to protection under Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act since the revision petitioners herein had not caused any Domestic Violence towards the respondent herein viz., Dr. V. Jothilakshmi . The learned Magistrate had further held that the respondent herein is not entitled to receive any relief, i.e., residential accommodation at the matrimonial house as per Section 19(a)(b)(c) of Domestic Violence Act since the matrimonial house bearing door No.733, 4th Street, Annanagar West Extension, Chennai, is in the name of the first petitioner's father, who purchased the property after raising bank loan. Till now the father of the first petitioner is repaying the loan amount to the bank out of his monthly pension. Besides Dr. V. Jothilakshmi is owning two houses in Chennai. The learned Magistrate had granted a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,000/-to each of the minor daughters of the first petitioner, in total a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month as per Section 20(d) of the Act since the respondent herein was earning Rs.35,000/-per month as a doctor, employed with Chennai Corporation Hospital and holding that she is also receiving monthly rent from her houses, but the first petitioner is earning Rs.17,000/-only per month as a Manager employed with a Bank. 6. Not being satisfied with the said order, the respondent herein has filed an appeal before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned judge after hearing the arguments of the appellants counsel and also the arguments of the respondent's counsel, allowed the appeal and set-aside the impugned order passed in M.C.No.12 of 2011. 6. Not being satisfied with the said order, the respondent herein has filed an appeal before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned judge after hearing the arguments of the appellants counsel and also the arguments of the respondent's counsel, allowed the appeal and set-aside the impugned order passed in M.C.No.12 of 2011. Consequently, the learned judge held that the respondent herein is entitled to relief sought for under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act as prayed for under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. As such, it was ordered that the revision petitioners herein is to provide all the relief including a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the minor children. 7. Aggrieved by the said order passed in C.A.No.112 of 2011 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai 20.12.2011, the above revision has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondent always used to say that she wanted to marry only a doctor and not an employee of a bank, but the respondent's father compelled the respondent to marry the first petitioner herein. Further, the respondent regularly insulted her husband before the third parties stating that she is a doctor and also earning more than her husband, who is a mere bank employee. As such, the respondent caused mental agony to the petitioner and she is not willing to lead her life with her husband. In the month of December 2008, the respondent removed her sacred thali without assigning any reason whatsoever. The respondent had submitted a petition against the revision petitioners before the Protection Officer, the same was resisted by the petitioners after filing a detailed reply with attached relevant documents, but the Protection Officer without proper inquiry referred the matter to the trial Court and the trial Court has taken the complaint as M.C.No.12 of 2011, wherein the revision petitioners herein had narrated the entire facts of the case and filed 14 documents, but the learned Magistrate directed the first revision petitioner to pay maintenance of a sum of Rs.6,000/-to the two minor children since the two minor children are living with the respondent herein, who is a serving doctor, earning Rs.35,000/- per month from the Chennai Corporation Hospital. Besides, she is receiving rental income from two houses which are located at Anna Nagar West and Ashok Nagar. Besides, she is receiving rental income from two houses which are located at Anna Nagar West and Ashok Nagar. As such, she is having sufficient income to maintain the children, since the first petitioner is earning Rs.17,000/-per month after statutory salary deductions. The respondent is owning about 10 grounds of land on the East Coast Road, Uthandi Plaza. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that the revision petitioners herein and their family members never caused any mental or physical torture. All the family members of the petitioners have showed love and affection to the minor children and extended their support to the children and the respondent. The respondent is always exhibiting a superiority complex in respect of her occupation, income and being owner of property. Hence, she is always rejecting the fact that the first petitioner should lead a happy married life; with these traits in her, she left the matrimonial home after collecting all her belongings. On one occasion, the respondent lodged a false complaint before the All Women Police Station against the petitioners; the same was closed after inquiry, as being a mistake of fact. The respondent came to the petitioner's employment place i.e., M/s. Repco Bank, North Usman Road, T. Nagar and assaulted the petitioner, hence a criminal case was registered against her under Sections 448, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.12 of 2012 on the file of R-4 Police Station, Pondy Bazaar. The said incident has been witnessed by the Bank employees, customers and general public, in the result, the bank business has been disrupted for a brief period. The respondent with ulterior motive had made several allegations against the revision petitioners in order to detach herself from the matrimonial home, after making many false complaints. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the first petitioner had extended all service to his wife and to his children as a dutiful husband and father. He had meted out every expense towards education of his first daughter and got admission at a reputed school in Chennai. The respondent without the permission and knowledge of the first petitioner had collected the transfer certificate from the said school of his daughter, as such the child's education was disrupted for one year. He had meted out every expense towards education of his first daughter and got admission at a reputed school in Chennai. The respondent without the permission and knowledge of the first petitioner had collected the transfer certificate from the said school of his daughter, as such the child's education was disrupted for one year. The petitioners family members are always ready to give accommodation to the respondent and the children at the first petitioner's father's house, i.e., the matrimonial house wherein all were residing. The respondent had levelled a case against the revision petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Actually, there is no material evidence to prove any Domestic Violence, in fact, the respondent had disturbed the first petitioner and in-laws during her stay at the matrimonial home. It is an admitted fact that the first petitioner is earning Rs.17,000/- per month after all deductions, at the same time, the respondent is earning Rs.35,000/- as a serving doctor with the Corporation, besides income from immovable properties of her. Under the circumstances, the appellate Court had erroneously granted all reliefs to the respondent including a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly maintenance to the two minor children. The said amount exceeds the income of the first petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the arbitrary order of the learned appellate Court. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited the following citations in support of his contentions:- (i) Padmaja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma reported in I (2000) DMC 629 (SC) "MAINTENANCE: Maintenance of Minor Children: Father and Mother Both Employed to Contribute: Proportionate of Amount – Meaning of term maintenance defined under Section 3(b), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Under Section 20 of Act it is as much obligation of father to maintain minor child as that of mother – Both parents employed – Approximate salary of husband is twice as much as that of wife – They are bound to contribute for maintenance of their children in that proportion – Amount awarded by Family Court under Section 125 Cr. P.C. not to be interfered – Sum of Rs.3,000/-per month for each of the child would be sufficient to maintain, to be borne by both parents in proportion of 2:1 – Directions issued – Section 26, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955." (ii) A. Jairam(DR) v. A Suman reported in II (2005) DMC 345 (DB) "(i) Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 24 and 26 – Interim Maintenance: Where both husband and wife are in gainful employment, proportionately they have to share expenses of maintenance incurred on their children: Amount of Rs.2,000/- of interim maintenance ordered by Family Court to be paid to children, not on higher side. (ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 24 and 26 - Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19 – Interim Maintenance: Mentioning wrong provision on application, Court does not ordinarily deny relief to litigant where it is grantable under any other provision of Act: Under Section 26 of 1995 Act, Court has power to pass interim order for maintenance and education of minor children." (iii) SreeRamudu Vs. N.Lahari reported in I (2005) DMC 566 "Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20 – Maintenance of minor female child: Both mother and father of minor child gainfully employed and having equal financial capacity, responsibility to be equally shared: Enhancing and fixing amount of Rs.1,500/- on higher side and same modified to Rs.1,000/- per month." (iv) Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatsalaben Ashokbhai Patel reported in (2008) 4 SCC 649 " 21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property. 22. Wholly un-contentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken a real state of affairs. 22. Wholly un-contentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken a real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached therefor but not of her mother-in-law. 24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise. (v) ShumitaDidi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors reported in 2007 (96) DRJ 697 "Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 2 & 17 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 – Interim injunction sought by daughter in law against her husband and in laws seeking protection from eviction from matrimonial home – The wife can claim right or residence only against her husband and not her in laws – House belonging to parents – Held that neither son nor his wife can claim any right to stay in the house – Interim injunction sought by wife, rejected." (vi) NeetuMittal v. Kanta Mittal & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Delhi 72 "Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), S.17 – Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.39, R.12 – Right of wife to claim residence in 'shared household' – Daughter in law cannot claim right to live in house of parents of husband against their consult and wishes – Injunction restraining daughter-in-law from forcibly entering into house of parents of husband and disturbing peaceful possession, can be granted." (vii) ArchanaHemant Naik v. Urmilaben I. Naik reported in 2010 CRI.L.J.751 "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (43 of 2005), Ss.2(q), 12, 19 Domestic Violence – Relatives of husband or male partner referred to in provisio to S.2 (q) – Cannot be only male relatives but can be female relatives also – Hence female relatives can also be respondents in application under Section 12 filed by wife or female covered by S.2(q) proviso." (viii) AmitKhanna & Anr. V. Priyanka Khanna & Ors reported in 2010 (119) DRJ 182 "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 20 – Excessive maintenance – No concrete proof of high status and vast property of husband – Mere allegations made by the wife that husband was a man of status and had vast movable and immovable properties would not give jurisdiction to the Court to pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband properties in the name of in-laws cannot be considered – Income of the husband was Rs.41,000/- per month (without deducting tax granting maintenance plus rent of Rs.45,000/- per month, under the circumstance is justified – Maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month and rent of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded." (ix) M.Muruganandamv. M.Megala reported in 2011 (1) CTC 841 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(q) – Expression "respondent" occurring in Section 2(q) would include second wife married by husband – Expression 'relative' should be given normal meaning in common parlance – Women who married husband of petitioner is certainly relative of such husband – complaint maintainable." 12. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners and their family members are constantly harassing the respondent especially the in-laws of the respondent due to jealousy and envy and disturbing the respondent and her husband. Immediately after marriage, the respondent and her husband had led their marriage for a brief period of time at the matrimonial home at Anna Nagar. Immediately after marriage, the respondent and her husband had led their marriage for a brief period of time at the matrimonial home at Anna Nagar. Thereafter, the couple moved to Madurai, wherein, the first petitioner was employed. The respondent gave birth to a female child on 06.06.2004, but the family members of the first petitioner are not satisfied, since the respondent delivered a female baby. The petitioners family had demanded dowry before the marriage and after the marriage. The entire marriage expenses had been borne by the respondent's parents. The father of the respondent had also purchased a car in the name of the respondent, a few days prior to the marriage, which was demanded by the bridegroom's side. The second petitioner herein had often visited Madurai and picked quarrels with the respondent without reasons. After some time, the respondent returned back to Chennai with her baby and joined the service there as a Doctor. At that time, the in-laws tortured the respondent and they demanded that she meted out the salary of the servant maid, electricity bill etc. The in-laws had not taken proper care of the baby, therefore, the respondent discontinued her service as a doctor. Thereafter, the respondent joined at Kamakshi Hospital as a part time serving doctor, during that time, the matrimonial house had been extended by way of additional room construction, for which, the respondent's gold jewellery were pledged for Rs.3,00,000/- towards construction costs. The first petitioner's sister, viz., Dr. Priya's married life was not a happy one, therefore, she became jealous and joined with her mother, viz., the second petitioner herein and started harassment. The respondent had contributed her entire salary to the matrimonial home. During her stay at the matrimonial home, the in-laws of the family had not provided adequate food to her. Thereafter, the respondent gave birth to a second female chid, hence, the in-laws further teased the respondent by using abusive language. The second petitioner herein had demanded the thali on several occasions and finally, she snatched the thali from the respondent's neck. The first petitioner had also extended his co-operation with his family members directly and indirectly. The first petitioner is having drinking habits and in order to prove the same, the learned counsel submitted a photocopy along with the typed set of papers. The first petitioner had also extended his co-operation with his family members directly and indirectly. The first petitioner is having drinking habits and in order to prove the same, the learned counsel submitted a photocopy along with the typed set of papers. The petitioner and his entire family members had been giving mental and physical torture, hence, the respondent resorted by visiting the All Womens Police Station, Thirumangalam and registered a case. The petitioners and their family members damaged the clinic board of the respondent and disturbed her profession as a doctor. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioners and their family members are very particular on her earnings, but never showed any love and affection towards her and her two children. The petitioners are owning valuable property at different villages in Ramnad District and deriving agricultural income through these properties. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent has been spending Rs.25,000/- and Rs.23,000/-for the two female children for their education, food, accommodation, dress, transport, cosmetics and medical expenses, communication and entertainment in addition to tuition fees, salary for servant-maid and also caretaker of the children on a round the clock basis. The learned counsel further submitted that the first petitioner's income was more than Rs.1,00,000/- and that after all deductions, his net salary is a sum of Rs.31,155/-, but the respondent's gross salary is Rs.37,000/- and after all deductions, her net income is only a sum of Rs.7,500/-per month. The first petitioner, from the date of his marriage, had not taken proper care of the respondent as a dutiful husband. After delivering two female children, the first petitioner and his family members have totally neglected the respondent and her children. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent being aggrieved and disturbed, rushed to the first petitioner's employment place at T. Nagar, for a reunion. At that time, the first petitioner had not shown any response. Therefore, a wordy quarrel had ensured and thereafter, the first petitioner levelled a complaint before the Police Station, for which, the employees of the bank had extended their co-operation to the first petitioner, being colleagues and co-employees. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been harassing the respondent and her family members ever since their marriage, i.e., for about 7 years. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been harassing the respondent and her family members ever since their marriage, i.e., for about 7 years. The respondent is a responsible and qualified doctor suffering intensely along with the two female children. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is taking much care on the children's welfare and education and happiness as a dutiful mother. Considering the entire case of the respondent and also perusing the petitioner's averments, the learned Magistrate had not granted an adequate remedy as sought by the respondent herein, the respondent had filed an appeal and the same was well considered and the appeal was allowed. As such, the first petitioner herein is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards the two minor children, in the well considered judgment now challenged by the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted a typed set of papers and discussed the entire incident and harassment caused to the respondent. 15. From the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view, (i) that the first petitioner is drawing a salary of a sum of Rs.31,155/- and now he is not providing any assistance in maintaining the respondent / wife and his two minor children aged about 8 years and 2 years respectively. (ii) Now, the minor children are under the proper care and custody of the respondent as a biological mother, who is meeting all necessary expenses of the children viz., child care expenses, services of servant maid, educational expenses, transport, food, clothes, accommodation, communication, tuition fees, cosmetics and entertainment. (iii) As per the status of the first petitioner's family and the respondent's status, the minor children should be provided with all necessary requirements. (iv) Now, the respondent is living along with the two minor children separately in the Metro City. Further, the respondent is now taking entire care and protection towards the children since the first petitioner deserted his family and not taking any responsibility or care for a reunion since the petitioner sought for the same by way of original petition before the Family Court and the same is being resisted by the first petitioner herein. (v) There is no one who depends upon the income of the first petitioner except his two minor children. (v) There is no one who depends upon the income of the first petitioner except his two minor children. Besides this, the first petitioner lives with his parents in their own house and therefore, he shall pay a maximum amount to the children out of his monthly earnings for their upbringing. 16. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned judgments of both Courts, this Court's view listed above as (i) to (v), this Court holds that the order passed by the appellate Court is to be modified. Accordingly, the maintenance payable by the first petitioner is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.15,000/-to the two minor children (each of them to receive Rs.7,500/-) with effect from March 2011, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The other relief sought by the respondent is overlooked since it has not been approved through substantial evidence. This Court further directs the first revision petitioner herein to open two separate savings bank account in the names of the two minor children and to also remit the entire arrears of monthly maintenance as per this Court's order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, after deducting any payment made to the children as monthly maintenance as per the order of the Courts below. Thereafter, the first petitioner herein is directed to remit the monthly maintenance to the children's account regularly on or before the 5th of every English calendar month. The respondent herein is permitted to withdraw the said maintenance amount from the children's account as and whenever required towards maintenance of the children. 16. In the ultimate analysis, the above revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment passed in C.A.No.112 of 2011, on the file of V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, dated 20.12.2011, modifying the judgment passed in M.C.No.12 of 2011, on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 24.05.2011 is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.